Why don't they have a system of 60/40 for the winner, 70/30 if its a knock out. Why does it have to be arranged before the fight. Every other sport gives the winner more money, why should boxing be different?
I know Tyson fought Frazier for nothing which is why he made easy work of him.![]()
Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.
Because boxing relies on individual fighters to draw fans and sell tickets. Other sports are the same way in a lot of cases, some franchises can stink for the better part of a decade and still draw much higher profits and sell more tickets than much better teams. And really, as if a fighter will agree to a 70/30 split in the event of a knockout. It's fun to talk about, but really imagine accepting a clause in which should you suffer a major concussion and suffer irreperable brain damage, you also lose out on a few million dollars you would've otherwise gone home with regardless.
I'm mainly talking about the Vegas main eventers, the ones who already make millions a fight. (Mayweather, Pacquiao, cotto, B-hop....ect). To me thats the whole point, its high risk but high reward. Heck they're in vegas, why not act like it! Besides its not like their lives are ruined if they dont get paid for one fight, "I'm sorry jr., but your puppy can't have that rolex like I promised....Im sorry but daddy didn't get paid, but you can still have yours!"
but the people that work for them don't have that luxury, don't think that most cornermen are making millions, cause it isn't the case buddy, all that comes from their fighters purse, so that's why 100/0 winner takes all fights don't make sense and shouldn't be made
Boxing is a buisness and this would not make buisness sense.
“If you want loyalty, buy a dog.” Ricky Hatton
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks